Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives
or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in
the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ
101.

Central to the concept of an iron triangle is the assumption that bureaucratic agencies,
as political entities, seek to create and consolidate their own power base. In this
view an agency's power is determined by its constituency, not by its consumers. (For
these purposes, "constituents" are politically active members sharing a common interest
or goal; consumers are the expected recipients of goods or services provided by a
governmental bureaucracy and are often identified in an agency's written goals or
mission statement.)

Apparent bureaucratic dysfunction may be attributable to the alliances formed between
the agency and its constituency. The official goals of an agency may appear to be
thwarted or ignored altogether at the expense of the citizenry it is designed to
serve.

Bootleggers and Baptists is a catch-phrase invented by regulatory economist Bruce
Yandle[1] for the observation that regulations are supported by both groups that
want the ostensible purpose of the regulation and groups that profit from undermining
that purpose.[2]

For much of the 20th century, Baptists and other evangelical Christians were prominent
in political activism for Sunday closing laws restricting the sale of alcohol. Bootleggers
sold alcohol illegally, and got more business if legal sales were restricted.[1]
“Such a coalition makes it easier for politicians to favor both groups. … [T]he Baptists
lower the costs of favor-seeking for the bootleggers, because politicians can pose
as being motivated purely by the public interest even while they promote the interests
of well-funded businesses. … [Baptists] take the moral high ground, while the bootleggers
persuade the politicians quietly, behind closed doors.”[3]